Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#841 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:19 PM

It finally makes sense why teams are offering up ridiculous contracts despite not having the monies to pay for it because they are not held accountable because they are continuously bailed out, hence, it is completely understandable that the more healthy teams who are being more financially responsible and not engaging in careless dealings are fed up because not only are they being responsible while others arent but at the same time losing out on the big players because they are not offering careless deals and then under the same system are giving the other teams money to have the big players with the irresponsible contracts?? It's hardly a fair system and needs to be corrected. How about you only get as much of the revenue share as you put in which is the same as no revenue sharing. Be financially responsible for your own business and generate your own revenue so they will be more accountable to balancing their books or being more financially responsible. At best, set up a contingency fund they all contribute a percentage of based on their revenue...and if things go rough...based on the amount they've contributed they get given in increments until they get past the rough period. Obviousely big money teams will contribute more and will have more of a safety cushion and the smaller markets contribute less and will get less, and this is consistent with what the teams are used to operating under...this contingency fund is fairer in that the companies are investing in themselves and not in someone elses business. And again, the contracts should be reviewed by the league and the teams will have to show how they will be able to carry out the contracts on their own commission.

Edited by Mauii, 15 September 2012 - 08:00 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#842 Karlsson`s Flo

Karlsson`s Flo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,351 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 09

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:44 PM

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?
  • 1

#843 agentfortyfour

agentfortyfour

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 09

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:25 PM

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?


actually i like that idea, although it would allow for a team to ice a horrendous team to try and gather first round picks....not that the cap floor stopped edmonton :)
  • 0

#844 D-Bo7

D-Bo7

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Joined: 18-December 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:29 PM

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?


The players wouldn't go for that because it would equal less jobs and less money for them.

Like you said, too many teams wouldn't ice competitive teams, and the parity that we would see today would disappear.
  • 0

#845 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:30 PM

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?


I'm not going to claim to be a hockey mind, but my opinion is yes.
Don't make weak market teams spend money they don't have, but don't allow the monster markets to play Yankee ball.
Competitive parity is not necessarily as tied to salary (within limits) as some may assume.
Lots of examples of that - the Rangers spent money willy-nilly for ages and could scarcely buy any advantage. Currently you need only compare a team that spends to the cap, like Calgary, to teams like Florida or Phoenix to see that thrifty teams are not doomed to being non-competitive and teams that throw money around are not necessarily going to win.
Letting go of the cap floor may be a concession on the NHLPA, but perhaps a reasonable one under the circumstances - and players still have the leverage to negotiate competitive contracts regardless.
  • 0

#846 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:53 PM

You're missing a more basic part of economics. Expenses and Revenue. The expenses are things like cost of maintenance of the building, staff, marketing, and of course player wages. Once these expenses are paid the idea is to make a profit margin. Now the league has not been honest with total revenue. The NHL isn't like the NBA/MLB/NFL with massive TV contracts (Once again something Gary has failed to provide). The total revenue is things like merchandise, parking, food, drinks etc. Without transparency how do we know what the teams are making?


I'm not understanding the "basic part of economics" I'm "missing" and how it relates to ticket prices. It is as basic as supply and demand...the cost of tickets is dictated by demand and availability. If nobody wants them and there is a large supply of them, then they will throw them in for free if you buy a case a beer irrespective of how much it costs to run an arena or to pay a player. You simply cannot be pricing your tickets at $120 for the bleeds if nobody cares to go to the game, well you can but no one will buy them so it wouldn't make good business sense to do so. Whereas teams that have a waiting list for season tickets and consecutive years of sell outs and limited supply of available tickets, well then they are in a position to sell tickets for $120 in the bleeds irrespective of how much it cost to run the arena or pay a player.

Edited by Mauii, 16 September 2012 - 02:17 AM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#847 drdeath

drdeath

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,079 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 03

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:56 PM

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

No. Instead of Nashville Predator success stories (spend cap floor, accidentally build a competitive team, win fans over) there would be even more Columbuses around spending even more of the rest of the league's money.
  • 0

aXmDa9t.gif


#848 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 639 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:56 PM

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?


That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.
  • 1

#849 TowelPower12

TowelPower12

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:28 PM

games lost due to labor since 1992 by sport - NFL: 0, NBA: 504, MLB: 938, NHL: 1,698

this league is a joke
  • 0

#850 TowelPower12

TowelPower12

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:29 PM

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.


the NHL doesn't generate enough revenue to not have a salary cap
  • 0

#851 Salter

Salter

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:59 PM

It's official, the contract just expired. We have a lockout.
  • 0
fD9sila.jpg

#852 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,683 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:01 PM

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.


Agree with the first point - the reason we see so many bad deals is because teams are trying to get to the cap floor.

In turn, agents and lawyers are using those bum deals for a client trying to sign with loaded teams that actually have money.
  • 0

#853 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,683 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:01 PM

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.


Agree with the first point - the reason we see so many bad deals is because teams are trying to get to the cap floor.

In turn, agents and lawyers are using those bum deals for a client trying to sign with loaded teams that actually have money.
  • 0

#854 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,683 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:02 PM

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.


Agree with the first point - the reason we see so many bad deals is because teams are trying to get to the cap floor.

In turn, agents and lawyers are using those bum deals for a client trying to sign with loaded teams that actually have money.
  • 0

#855 greetingsfrombrazil

greetingsfrombrazil

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:04 PM

A lockout it is. F***
  • 0

#856 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,056 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:05 PM

:sadno: :picard:
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#857 Don't.Mess.With.Kes<3

Don't.Mess.With.Kes<3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,635 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:05 PM

So is it possible the season will just start a bit later? As in around dec/jan?
  • 0

Go Canucks Go

#858 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,683 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:11 PM

So is it possible the season will just start a bit later? As in around dec/jan?


Anything's possible around this point.

Elliot Friedman of CBC said it could start November if both sides get it together. Of course, it could stalemate into yet another cancellation of the season.
  • 0

#859 PlayStation

PlayStation

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:13 PM

I'm cold:( someone hold me:'(

Gary gets his hat-trick!

Edited by PlayStation, 15 September 2012 - 09:14 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image


"Real Men" :bigblush:

#860 Honeydews

Honeydews

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,062 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:15 PM

i'm mad
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image
Credit to pwnstar for this amazing kesler sig :)

#861 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:19 PM

Damn, I really hope they can work this out soon. Honestly though, enough with this BS, hockey's a part of peoples lives, and Bettman is taking that away from us without concern of others well beings. Fascist.
  • 0
Posted Image

#862 Imuzi

Imuzi

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:20 PM

Merry Lockout :)
  • 0

Posted Image


#863 jovocop55

jovocop55

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,953 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 03

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:43 PM

if it's locked out the whole season, all the advertising revenue and tv revenue gonna go down big time...
  • 0

#864 xWCMx

xWCMx

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,061 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 06

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:01 PM

So when do the fans start to fight back? Like its been said again and again, there IS a deal to be made here, but both sides instead are playing coy and pointing fingers. When do WE step up and let our voices be heard as well?
  • 0
Posted Image

Sig removed - inappropriate ^ how was this inappropriate?

#865 hockeyfan90

hockeyfan90

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:09 PM

http://www.tsn.ca/nh...400#YourCallTop
  • 0

#866 Twilight Sparkle

Twilight Sparkle

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,047 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:13 PM

wonder who from the player's union will step up this time. hopefully we dont lose an entire season but i'm not too bent out of shape about a lock out. knew it was coming. players being paid millions of dollars complaining they aren't getting paid millions of dollars. doesn't make sense
  • 0

15fitjt.jpg

 

who was fitted with collar and chain

who was given a pat on the back

who was breaking away from the pack


#867 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:37 PM

I predicted in all fairness that this was a bunch of sabre rattling. I was totally convinced that there is no real benefit to either side to stall for a lock out.

I was dead wrong.
  • 0
Posted Image

#868 Doubled23

Doubled23

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:18 PM


  • 0

#869 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:22 PM

Please fix cap circumvention. No more front loaded contracts. Term limits on contracts and a higher age before UFA are really important. Teams spend a lot of time and effort on developing their draft picks only to lose them at 27 years of age when they become stars, ie Suter and Parise. This needs to be upped to 10 seasons or 30 years. Since there is a lockout might as well fix all these things.

This Fehr guy is quite the character, I wouldn't be surprised if he caused the NHL to lose the entire season.
  • 0

#870 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,715 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 16 September 2012 - 12:59 AM

Please fix cap circumvention. No more front loaded contracts. Term limits on contracts and a higher age before UFA are really important. Teams spend a lot of time and effort on developing their draft picks only to lose them at 27 years of age when they become stars, ie Suter and Parise. This needs to be upped to 10 seasons or 30 years. Since there is a lockout might as well fix all these things.

This Fehr guy is quite the character, I wouldn't be surprised if he caused the NHL to lose the entire season.


So how much do the owners pay you to come on fan boards and try to talk up their side of things?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.